-
sponsorship
Why do I get the feeling that the VNS Exit Polls were way off--in a pro-Dem direction--once again? Answer: Because early evening posts like this one from Marc Ambinder seemed to be hinting at a Corzine victory:
Courtesy of CBS News: If Jon Corzine wins re-election, he can thank women, who gave him a narrow advantage and who voted at higher proportions than men did.
He could have written "If Chris Christie is the new governor of N.J., he can thank men, who gave him a huge advantage ..." But ... he didn't. Did the exit polls show a relatively big Corzine victory? Back in the day when the exit polls were widely leaked, everyone would know what they were and--if they were wrong--they would know that they were wrong. Now they are more closely held--which allows the VNS to keep screwing up and hide its inaccuracy ... Again, if we can't trust the exit poll's bottom line result (presumably due to a subtle bias in which voters pollsters talk to) why can we trust any of the demographic breakouts that scholars, etc. use? Won't they be subtly biased too? ...
Update: A kf source reports
Exits were close in VA and Corzine ahead in NJ.
Pathetic! I guess I was wrong when I said they were subtly biased. ... 7:25 P.M.
___________________________
Hardy Perennial: Stuck in traffic this evening? Why the end of Daylight Saving Time invariably produces giant, gas-wasting jams on local freeways. ... 3:49 P.M.
___________________________
Shorter Nagourney (and you're not missing much): "Best outcome for Democrats: Win ... Worst outcome for Republicans: Losing ...."** ...
**--Those are direct quotes. I am not aware of all internet traditions. ... 3:46 P.M.
____________________________
This is not the market share we paid for: After a big ad campaign, General Motors gets an estimated 21% market share in October. Edmunds.com had predicted 22.4%. Kf analysts not impressed, await scathing TTAC take-apart. .. Update: TTAC punts to its readers, who note a) GM achieved this market share with lots of "incentives" (i.e. price cuts); b) GM introduced several new models, which is a good thing--but new models often produce a sales spike that evaporates within a few months. ... Bailout II still on track. ... 3:22 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Roger Simon says John Edwards could rehabilitate himself by becomng the "poster boy for tort reform," He forgot about the sex tape. ... 6:47 P.M.
___________________________
Jimmy Carter cites racism as anti-Obama factor. Instant reaction: Kiss of Death. Gift to the GOPs. Remember the Carter era of smug moralizing? Anyone want to go back to that? ... P.S.: A good example of how, if the MSM wants to tilt against the Republicans, it's often too wedded to its own conventions--e.g., the desire to 'make news' with an ex-Pres.--to be effective. ... No sophisticated campaign propagandist would say, "OK, let's throw Jimmy Carter at them. They'll be reeling!" ....6:42 P.M.
___________________________
Obama Overexposure Tour continues. ... Next: Bloggingheads? Mediaite Office Hours? 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Jeffrey Lord gives a good description of the MSM Gatekeeper's Greatst Hits. Then he goes on and on. Makes Rabbi Saperstein look like Marcel Marceau. ...P.S.: Lord lays it on as if only conservative bloggers, etc, have been rebelling against Big Media. As if he wants a piece of the Mark Levin business. Depressing. ... [via Lucianne] 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Why did the GOP lead in "generic" ballot evaporate on Rassmussen, even as Obama health bounce also vanished? Is the Joe Wilson heckle hurting? ... Could this be an example of a successful kamikaze-style attack? Wilson's "You lie" badly damaged its target (Obama has apparently now caved on the central issue of verifying legal status) but it also damaged Wilson. ... Except that it's not clear it damaged Wilson himself, reelection wise. It's his party that's maybe been hurt. "Kamikaze" isn't the right analogy. ... What's the word for a kamikaze attack in which the pilot survives but the carrier he took off from gets sunk? ... 6:23 P.M.
___________________________
Twitter is not @marcambinder's friend! It broadcasts his initial take--which is often 180 degrees wrong. Example #1: Twittering as if Obama would be mad at the networks that his off the record "jackass" comment leaked. #2: Twittering as if town hall rebelliousness would help the Dems. ... 6:09 P.M.
___________________________
That False Consciousness Keeps On Coming: Workers at Boeing factory vote to un-unionize. By secret ballot. ... Because when it comes to decertifying unions, union lobbyists insist on the sanctity of the secret ballot. ... 6:08 P.M.
___________________________
Jack Palance Plays Elmer Gantry: Andrew Breitbart + Good Haircut = Slightly Scary Rabble-Rousing Potential. ... 6:05 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
The Dreidl Spins, and Having Been Spun, Moves On: Marc Ambinder now says Obama is in good shape on health care because he "survived August" in better shape than Ambinder had expected:
At the beginning of the month, I predicted that August might turn out be a bloodbath for Democrats. At the time, the Democratic self-containment on health care had dissolved, cranks were taking over constituent meetings, and that real anxiety about Obama had found a channel and political opponents of health care had an edge.
Hmm. That's not what I remember Ambinder saying. I remember him saying that health care opponent-cranks were overplaying their hand in a way that would help Democrats. Let's go to the Internets! Here's Ambinder on August 6:
Bottom line: turning h/c town hall meetings into anti-Obama venting sessions won't convince Blue Dog Dems. to vote against h/c. I think
and on the same day
I think GOPers are of 2 minds about these protests. Or, they shld be. Even though this trend favors the left, I don't know if they will... [E.A.]
and finally in an August 11 magnum opus entitled "Conservatives Are Blowing It on Health Care":
... Democrats are beginning to notice that opponents of health care reform have discredited themselves. They ramped up much too quickly. When smaller, conservative groups Astroturfed, they inevitably brought to the meetings the type of Republican activist who was itching for a fight and who would use the format to vent frustrations at President Obama himself. ...[T]he loudest voices tended to be the craziest, the most extreme, the least sensible, and the most easy to mock. ... [E.A.]
Is Ambinder being spun so fast he doesn't remember what he himself "predicted" a month ago? Or is he ... spinning his own previous spin (to make his more recent spin seem more plausible). ....
P.S.--Nobody Sucks Up Both Ways Like Andrew Sullivan: Meanwhile, elsewhere in Mr. Bradley's well-padded neighborhood, Andrew Sullivan says, "I agree with most everything David Brooks has written on this subject [of health care]." Then Sullivan declares that the likely Obama compromise plan
will be a huge step forward on the accessibility front, if not on costs. (But we can come back on costs, and must, in a broader context of fundamental fiscal reform)
which is pretty much the exact opposite of what Brooks has written on the subject. Brooks argues that measures to increase accessibility aren't a huge step forward at all, because "they don't reduce costs." He wants Obama to double-down on Orszagist curve-bending now and "fundamentally challenge the fee-for-service system." Easy advice to give if you are Republican pundit who gets to pose as a far-seeing responsible type today and then later dismiss Obama as an incompetent liberal when he takes Brooks' advice and fails. Sullivan was right the second time. ... 2:29 A..M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
If You've Lost Robert Pear ... : From Maguire:
Old New York Times reporting: "Death panel" rumors "false," the product of a familiar network of anti-reform "pundits and conservative media outlets":
There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.
New New York Times reporting: "[F]ears ... about possible rationing" are "not entirely irrational":
The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life.
Next thing you know, the NYTers will be grabbing the mike at town halls. ...
P.S.: At least when voters are having notentirelyirrationalfears that Obama would have the state play god by exercising yes/no power over life-ending medical decsions, he didn't go and say something creepily extravagant and provocative like "we are God's partners in matters of life and death." ... Whew! ... Oh.. ... [also via Maguire] ... Update: I'm now having mild, but gnawing, doubts as to the epistemological status of that Obama quote. Politico reports it (twice). It seems to come from the real time twitter feed of a rabbi who was in on the phone call. (The rabbi has since deleted the tweet, giving an odd explanation.) Press Secretary Gibbs was asked about the quote Friday, didn't deny it, but said he'd have to check the transcript.... 5:10 P.M.
___________________________
Groopman vs. Gawande? I missed New Yorker contributor Dr. Jerome Groopman reaming President Obama on the magazine's July 23 podcast. Groopman accuses the President of "happy talk" that pretends the problem of long-term cost control will be painless. He also claims the "current" reform propoals will "build a huge bureaucratic superstructure around things that are not gonna save money and probably aren't going to improve quality."
Groopman's critique isn't mine--he thinks "rationing is going to be inevitable" and fees for doctors hospitals and drug companies have to be radically reduced. But his arguments certainly sit uneasily with the implication of the famously influential article by his fellow New Yorker doc, Atul Gawande--which is that, hey, if we only crack down on the wasteful McAllen, Texases of the world we can dramatically cut costs relatively painlessly. ...
P.S.: I obviously agree with Rick Hertzberg, who argues you have to give everyone the "goodies" (of universal coverage) first, and then whatever hard choices are necessary become easier. And I don't quite understand why the choice has to be Euro-style rationing (Groopman's view) if we're willing to make the alternative hard choice of raising taxes (or cutting other spending) to pay for avoiding it. ... 1:20 A.M.
___________________________
Gawker says that the National Enquirer has "has been 100 percent right about everything on this story"--a now-common MSM overreaction. I'd say the Enquirer has been more like 95% right--still better than anyone else. Their main blind spot is a refusal to say anything bad about Elizabeth Edwards, presumably for fear of offending their readership who prefer the story line of St. Elizabeth the Resilient Victim. (Enquirer editor David Perel: "She's been hurt. She lashed out. ... [T]here's some places I don't want to go.") Fortunately, HuffPo's Lee Stranahan is still around to chronicle Elizabeth's dissembling. ...
P.S.: Bonus Google gold! ... 1:19 A.M.
___________________________
Systemic Change at Dreidl HQ: Marc Ambinder now sticks in a 'to be sure' graf before selling us the optimistic WH spin. Today's good news for Obama? He's "about to go on vacation"! .... 1:03 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Everything's Under Control! I missed Ezra Klein's latest optimistic spin last week on the health care debate. Klein notes that Obama isn't talking about "bending the cost curve" on the stump, and that Republicans have gained traction, not with arguments about cost and the long-term deficit, but with fears of cost-cutting and rationing. So far, so good.
But Klein says the administration always intended its "curve bending" arguments as a means of building "Washington support" and passing a bill by August ("the plan was to keep this in Washington"). Now that this effort has failed,** "the argument moves to the country" where the administration's pitch will be different, focusing on stories of insurance injustices. "You don't win appealing to the wallet, you win by grabbing the gut."
This reeks of making-the-best-of-a-bad-situationism:
1) Did the administration really think it was going to pass a bill reforming the entire health care system without winning the "outside" battle for public support? If so, someone drew the wrong lesson from the "stimulus" bill. (The stimulus bill was intended to address an acute crisis.)
2) Did the administration think that Obama could run around talking obsessively about his plans to "bend the curve" of health costs (including in a nationally televised press conference), giving interviews to the New York Times about the need for a "very difficult democratic conversation" on restricting end-of-life care and the news would stay in Washington? Note: They've invented the telegraph!
3) Most important, does the adminsitration think it has plenty of time now to move on to win the argument in "the country"--as if this were a stately, well-ordered two-stage fight, a formal legal appeal to a higher court of public opnion? Does anyone really believe this? I doubt even Ezra Klein believes it--though I guess every great spinner believes his own spin. (And Klein, unlike Ambinder, seems like a spinner rather than a spinnee.)
What he breezily glosses over is the possibility--increasingly, the actuality--that they've already lost the public opinion battle for the near future. If they now need public opinion to pass the bill in the fall, they aren't going to pass a bill. It turns out you may only get one chance to roll out a giant legislative initiative. You can't roll it out with a cost-cutting rationale and then switch cunningly and seamlessly to a security-providing rationale without addressing the fears raised by the first set of arguments.
Specifically, a few "gut"-grabbing insurance horror stories aren't going to calm the "rationing" fears of those now covered by Medicare (who don't worry about their insurance, or didn't until Obama came along). The best defense is not always a good offense (cf. Dunkirk). In this case, what's required would seem to be more a dramatic repudiation of the administration's own cost-bending, treatment-discouraging rhetoric.
Obama can't fire himself, but he can fire the curve-bending wonks who convinced him that talking about end-of-life issues was a good way to sell universal care. He can find himself a health-care Petraeus. And he can ditch the closest thing to a "death panel" in the legislation--the IMAC board. The more traumatic and high-profile the intra-administration upheaval, the more space Obama buys to relaunch his plan as a rationing-free coverage extension.
That would be a Plan B. ...
P.S.: Maguire mocks the NYT's effort to bury, under a layer of anti-yahoo sneering, the evidence in its own pages of Obama talking about restricting end-of-life treatments to save money. ...
**--See Lori Montgomery's wildly unconvincing argument that health care reform has to drive down the long-term cost curve (not just be "paid for") in order to pass. Maybe if the vote was taken by the respectable, responsible newspaper editors who order up hothouse pieces like Montgomery's. As Klein notes, the "curve-bending" argument didn't even carry the day inside the Beltway, while provoking active hostility outside. ... 3:49 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Dropping the public option:
a) A little early, no? Quite apart from whether it reeks a bit of panic--Politico notes that the public option was a useful threat to hold over the insurance industry when negotiating the rules insurers will have to abide by;
b) Moving toward compromise on this issue already seems to be helping the administration with the inside game--i.e., getting enough moderates on board to, in theory, pass a bill. But the inside game is not the administration's biggest problem. The problem is the outside game--public support for the bill out in the country--where it has been losing fairly decisively. If the public ends up 60-40 against a bill, it's probably not going to happen even if Sen. Conrad is on board.
Will dropping the public option help with the outside game too? Maybe a bit: it reduces fear of a government takeover. But it does little to reduce legitimate fears of rationing in the existing, huge govenrment program--Medicare. To calm those fears, the provision to drop is Peter Orszag's precious IMAC commission, which Obama himself has seemingly promoted as nudging the system in the direction of denying care toward the end of life. ...
P.S.: Pulling Back from the Public Option? This is a Job for The Dreidl! Atlantic's Marc Ambinder declares "the President never insisted that a health care bill contain a public plan." Huh? Is Ambinder being spun so fast he can't read? The Obama address he links to says this:
That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family. [E.A.]
That annoying word, "must." Sure reads to me like the President insisting that a health care bill contain a public plan. ...10:47 P.M.
___________________________
Mike Murphy is not a fan of Sarah Palin. ... 11:07 P.M.
___________________________
From Public Option to Pubic Option! Pigeon O'Brien thinks she knows why the delay in the rumored Edwards paternity admission. ...11:07 P.M.
___________________________